Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5387_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
6 • From Deep Generative Models to Structure-Based Simulations 151
70. Moussad B, Roche R, Bhattacharya D. The transformative power of transformers in pro‑
tein structure prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2023; 120(32):e2303499120. Available
from: https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2303499120
71. Zhu Y‑H, Zhang C, Yu D‑J, Zhang Y. Integrating unsupervised language model with
triplet neural networks for protein gene ontology prediction. PLoS Comput Biol 2022;
18:e1010793. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010793
72. Yuan Q, Xie J, Xie J, Zhao H, Yang Y. Fast and accurate protein function prediction from
sequence through pretrained language model and homology‑based label diffusion. Brief
Bioinform 2023; 24(3): bbad117. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/
doi/10.1093/bib/bbad117/7085635
73. Yamaguchi H, Saito Y. Evotuning protocols for Transformer‑based variant effect pre‑
diction on multi‑domain proteins. Brief Bioinform 2021; 22(6):bbab234. Available from:
https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/doi/10.1093/bib/bbab234/6309928
74. Jiang TT, Fang L, Wang K. Deciphering “the language of nature”: a transformer‑based lan‑
guage model for deleterious mutations in proteins. Innovation 2023; 4:100487. Available
from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666675823001157
75. Amimeur T, Shaver JM, Ketchem RR, Taylor JA, Clark RH, Smith J, Citters D Van, Siska
CC, Smidt P, Sprague M, etal. Designing feature‑controlled humanoid antibody discovery
libraries using generative adversarial networks. bioRxiv 2020. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1101/2020.04.12.024844
76. McCoy LE, Rutten L, Frampton D, Anderson I, Granger L, Bashford‑Rogers R, Dekkers
G, Strokappe NM, Seaman MS, Koh W, etal. Molecular evolution of broadly neutraliz‑
ing llama antibodies to the CD4‑binding site of HIV‑1. PLoS Pathog 2014; 10:e1004552.
Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004552
77. Shin J‑E, Riesselman AJ, Kollasch AW, McMahon C, Simon E, Sander C, Manglik A,
Kruse AC, Marks DS. Protein design and variant prediction using autoregressive genera‑
tive models. Nat Commun 2021; 12:2403. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41467‑021‑22732‑w
78. Xu X, Xu T, Zhou J, Liao X, Zhang R, Wang Y, Zhang L, Gao X. AB‑Gen: antibody
library design with generative pre‑trained transformer and deep reinforcement learning.
Genomics Proteomics Bioinform 2023; 21(5):1043–53. Available from: https://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S167202292300092X
79. Olsen TH, Boyles F, Deane CM. Observed antibody space: a diverse database of cleaned,
annotated, and translated unpaired and paired antibody sequences. Protein Sci 2022;
31:141–6. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pro.4205
80. Olsen TH, Moal IH, Deane CM. AbLang: an antibody language model for complet‑
ing antibody sequences. Bioinform Adv 2022; 2(1):vbac046. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1093/bioadv/vbac046
81. Rives A, Meier J, Sercu T, Goyal S, Lin Z, Liu J, Guo D, Ott M, Zitnick CL, Ma J, etal.
Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250mil‑
lion protein sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2021; 118(15):e2016239118. Available
from: https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2016239118
82. Shuai RW, Ruffolo JA, Gray JJ. IgLM: inlling language modeling for antibody sequence
design. Cell Syst 2023; 14:979–989.e4. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S2405471223002715
83. Nijkamp E, Ruffolo JA, Weinstein EN, Naik N, Madani A. ProGen2: exploring the bound‑
aries of protein language models. Cell Syst 2023; 14:968–978.e3. Available from: https://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405471223002727
152 Biopharmaceutical Informatics
84. Chennamsetty N, Voynov V, Kayser V, Helk B, Trout BL. Design of therapeutic proteins
with enhanced stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:11937–42. Available from:
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/11937.short
85. Sormanni P, Aprile FA, Vendruscolo M. The CamSol method of rational design of protein
mutants with enhanced solubility. J Mol Biol 2015; 427:478–90. Available from: https://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022283614005312
86. Eguchi RR, Choe CA, Huang P‑S. Ig‑VAE: generative modeling of protein structure by
direct 3D coordinate generation. PLoS Comput Biol 2022; 18:e1010271. Available from:
https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010271
87. Ferdous S, Martin ACR. AbDb: antibody structure database—a database of PDB‑derived
antibody structures. Database 2018; 2018:bay040. Available from: https://academic.oup.
com/database/article/doi/10.1093/database/bay040/4989324
88. Berman H, Henrick K, Nakamura H, Markley JL. The worldwide Protein Data Bank
(wwPDB): ensuring a single, uniform archive of PDB data. Nucleic Acids Res 2007;
35:D301–3. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/nar/article‑lookup/doi/10.1093/nar/
gkl971
89. Sirin S, Apgar JR, Bennett EM, Keating AE. AB‑Bind: antibody binding mutational data‑
base for computational afnity predictions. Protein Sci 2016; 25:393–409. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.2829
90. Jain T, Sun T, Durand S, Hall A, Houston NR, Nett JH, Sharkey B, Bobrowicz B, Caffry I,
Yu Y, etal. Biophysical properties of the clinical‑stage antibody landscape. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 2017; 114:944–9. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/
pnas.1616408114
91. Jankauskaitė J, Jiménez‑García B, Dapkūnas J, Fernández‑Recio J, Moal IH. SKEMPI
2.0: an updated benchmark of changes in protein–protein binding energy, kinetics and
thermodynamics upon mutation. Bioinformatics 2019; 35:462–9. Available from: https://
academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/35/3/462/5055583
92. Okamoto Y. Generalized‑ensemble algorithms: enhanced sampling techniques for Monte
Carlo and molecular dynamics simulations. J Mol Graph Model 2004; 22:425–39. Available
from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1093326303001980
93. Ponder JW, Case DA. Force elds for protein simulations. In: Advances in Protein
Chemistry. 2003. page 27–85.Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S006532330366002X
94. Mackerell AD. Empirical force elds for biological macromolecules: overview and issues.
J Comput Chem 2004; 25:1584–604. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1002/jcc.20082
95. Dauparas J, Anishchenko I, Bennett N, Bai H, Ragotte RJ, Milles LF, Wicky BIM, Courbet
A, de Haas RJ, Bethel N, etal. Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using
ProteinMPNN. Science (1979) 2022; 378:49–56. Available from: https://www.science.org/
doi/10.1126/science.add2187
96. Bekker G‑J, Kamiya N. Thermal stability estimation of single domain antibodies using
molecular dynamics simulations. In: Kouhei Tsumoto, Daisuke Kuroda (eds.), Methods in
Molecular Biology. 2023. page 151–63. New York: Humana New York. Available from:
https://link.springer.com /10.1007/978‑1‑0716‑2609‑2_8
97. Zhang C, Dalby PA. Assessing and engineering antibody stability using experimental
and computational methods. In: Kouhei Tsumoto, Daisuke Kuroda (eds.), Methods in
Molecular Biology. 2023. page 165–97. New York: Humana New York. Available from:
https://link.springer.com /10.1007/978‑1‑0716‑2609‑2_9
6 • From Deep Generative Models to Structure-Based Simulations 153
98. Sulea T, Deprez C, Corbeil CR, Purisima EO. Optimizing antibody–antigen binding afni‑
ties with the ADAPT platform. In: Kouhei Tsumoto, Daisuke Kuroda (eds.), Methods in
Molecular Biology. 2023. page 361–74. New York: Humana New York. Available from:
https://link.springer.com /10.1007/978‑1‑0716‑2609‑2_20
99. Medagli B, Soler MA, De Zorzi R, Fortuna S. Antibody afnity maturation using com‑
putational methods: from an initial hit to small‑scale expression of optimized binders. In:
Kouhei Tsumoto, Daisuke Kuroda (eds.), Methods in Molecular Biology. 2023. page 333–
59. New York: Humana New York. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978‑
1‑0716‑2609‑2_19
100. Leman JK, Weitzner BD, Lewis SM, Adolf‑Bryfogle J, Alam N, Alford RF, Aprahamian
M, Baker D, Barlow KA, Barth P, etal. Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta:
recent methods and frameworks. Nat Methods 2020; 17:665–80. Available from: https://
www.nature.com/articles/s41592‑020‑0848‑2
101. Guerois R, Nielsen JE, Serrano L. Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and
protein complexes: a study of more than 1000mutations. J Mol Biol 2002; 320:369–87.
Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022283602004424
102. Ikeuchi E, Kuroda D, Nakakido M, Murakami A, Tsumoto K. Delicate balance among
thermal stability, binding afnity, and conformational space explored by single‑domain
VHH antibodies. Sci Rep 2021; 11:20624. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598‑021‑98977‑8
103. Schueler‑Furman O, Wodak SJ. Computational approaches to investigating allostery. Curr
Opin Struct Biol 2016; 41:159–71. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0959440X16300744
104. Tomimoto Y, Yamazaki R, Shirai H. Increasing the melting temperature of VHH with the
in silico free energy score. Sci Rep2023; 13:4922. Available from: https://www.nature.
com/articles/s41598‑023‑32022‑8
105. Okazaki K, Kobashigawa Y, Morita H, Yamauchi S, Fukuda N, Liu C, Toyota Y, Sato T,
Morioka H. Molecular dynamics‑based design and biophysical evaluation of thermostable
single‑chain Fv antibody mutants derived from pharmaceutical antibodies. ACS Omega
2023; 8:22945–54. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c01948
106. Almagro JC, Fransson J. Humanization of antibodies. Front Biosci 2008; 13:1619–33.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981654
107. Makowski EK, Kinnunen PC, Huang J, Wu L, Smith MD, Wang T, Desai AA, Streu CN,
Zhang Y, Zupancic JM, etal. Co‑optimization of therapeutic antibody afnity and specic‑
ity using machine learning models that generalize to novel mutational space. Nat Commun
2022; 13:3788. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467‑022‑31457‑3
108. Prihoda D, Maamary J, Waight A, Juan V, Fayadat‑Dilman L, Svozil D, Bitton DA. BioPhi:
a platform for antibody design, humanization, and humanness evaluation based on natural
antibody repertoires and deep learning. MAbs 2022; 14:2020203. Available from: https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420862.2021.2020203
109. Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT: pre‑training of deep bidirectional
transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of
the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human
Language Technologies (NAACL HLT 2019). 2019. Kerrville, TX: Association for
Computational Linguistics. Available from: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805
110. Lai P‑K, Gallegos A, Mody N, Sathish HA, Trout BL. Machine learning prediction of anti‑
body aggregation and viscosity for high concentration formulation development of protein
therapeutics. MAbs 2022; 14:2026208. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
full/10.1080/19420862.2022.2026208
154 Biopharmaceutical Informatics
111. Harmalkar A, Rao R, Richard Xie Y, Honer J, Deisting W, Anlahr J, Hoenig A, Czwikla J,
Sienz‑Widmann E, Rau D, etal. Toward generalizable prediction of antibody thermostabil‑
ity using machine learning on sequence and structure features. MAbs 2023; 15:2163584.
Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420862.2022.2163584
112. Harmalkar A, Gray JJ. Advances to tackle backbone exibility in protein docking. Curr
Opin Struct Biol 2021; 67:178–86. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S0959440X20302141
113. Mahajan SP, Meksiriporn B, Waraho‑Zhmayev D, Weyant KB, Kocer I, Butler DC, Messer
A, Escobedo FA, DeLisa MP. Computational afnity maturation of camelid single‑domain
intrabodies against the nonamyloid component of alpha‑synuclein. Sci Rep 2018; 8:17611.
Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598‑018‑35464‑7
114. Cannon DA, Shan L, Du Q, Shirinian L, Rickert KW, Rosenthal KL, Korade M, van
Vlerken‑Ysla LE, Buchanan A, Vaughan TJ, etal. Experimentally guided computational anti‑
body afnity maturation with de novo docking, modelling and rational design. PLoS Comput
Biol 2019; 15:e1006980. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006980
115. Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, Tunyasuvunakool
K, Bates R, Žídek A, Potapenko A, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction
with AlphaFold. Nature 2021; 596:583–589. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586‑021‑03819‑2
116. Lensink MF, Brysbaert G, Raouraoua N, Bates PA, Giulini M, Honorato R V., van Noort C,
Teixeira JMC, Bonvin AMJJ, Kong R, etal. Impact of AlphaFold on structure prediction
of protein complexes: the CASP15‐CAPRI experiment. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform
2023; 91:1658–83. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prot.26609
117. Google DeepMind AlphaFold Team, Isomorphic Labs Team. Performance and struc‑
tural coverage of the latest, in‑development AlphaFold model. 2023 [cited 2024 Feb 19].
Available from: https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind‑media/DeepMind.com/Blog/a‑g
limpse‑of‑the‑next‑generation‑of‑alphafold/alphafold_latest_oct2023.pdf
118. Guest JD, Vreven T, Zhou J, Moal I, Jeliazkov JR, Gray JJ, Weng Z, Pierce BG. An
expanded benchmark for antibody‑antigen docking and afnity prediction reveals insights
into antibody recognition determinants. Structure 2021; 29:606–621.e5. Available from:
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0969212621000058
119. Setliff I, Shiakolas AR, Pilewski KA, Murji AA, Mapengo RE, Janowska K, Richardson
S, Oosthuysen C, Raju N, Ronsard L, etal. High‑throughput mapping of B cell receptor
sequences to antigen specicity. Cell 2019; 179:1636–1646.e15. Available from: https://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867419312243
120. Harmalkar A, Lyskov S, Gray JJ. Reliable protein‑protein docking with AlphaFold, Rosetta,
and replica‑exchange. Elife 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94029.1
121. Farady CJ, Sellers BD, Jacobson MP, Craik CS. Improving the species cross‑reactivity of
an antibody using computational design. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2009; 19:3744–7.
122. Lippow SM, Wittrup KD, Tidor B. Computational design of antibody‑afnity improve‑
ment beyond in vivo maturation. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25:1171–6. Available from: https://
www.nature.com/doinder/10.1038/nbt1336
123. Clark LA, Boriack‑Sjodin PA, Eldredge J, Fitch C, Friedman B, Hanf KJM, Jarpe M,
Liparoto SF, Li Y, Lugovskoy A, etal. Afnity enhancement of an in vivo matured thera‑
peutic antibody using structure‑based computational design. Protein Sci 2006; 15:949–60.
Available from: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1110/ps.052030506
124. Kiyoshi M, Caaveiro JMM, Miura E, Nagatoishi S, Nakakido M, Soga S, Shirai H,
Kawabata S, Tsumoto K. Afnity improvement of a therapeutic antibody by structure‑based
computational design: generation of electrostatic interactions in the transition state stabi‑
lizes the antibody‑antigen complex. PLoS One 2014; 9:e87099. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087099
6 • From Deep Generative Models to Structure-Based Simulations 155
125. Willis JR, Sapparapu G, Murrell S, Julien JP, Singh V, King HG, Xia Y, Pickens JA, La
Branche CC, Slaughter JC, et al. Redesigned HIV antibodies exhibit enhanced neutral‑
izing potency and breadth. J Clin Invest 2015; 125:2523–31. Available from: https://doi.
org /10.1172/JCI80 693
126. Barderas R, Desmet J, Timmerman P, Meloen R, Casal JI. Afnity maturation of antibod‑
ies assisted by in silico modeling. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 2008; 105:9029–34. Available
from: https://www.pnas.org/content/105/26/9029.abstract
127. Fukunaga A, Tsumoto K. Improving the afnity of an antibody for its antigen via long‑range
electrostatic interactions. Protein Eng Design Select 2013; 26:773–80. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzt053
128. Yanaka S, Moriwaki Y, Tsumoto K, Sugase K. Elucidation of potential sites for antibody
engineering by uctuation editing. Sci Rep 2017; 7:9597. Available from: https://www.
nature.com/articles/s41598‑017‑10246‑9
129. Davey JA, Chica RA. Multistate approaches in computational protein design. Protein Sci
2012; 21:1241–52. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pro.2128
130. Sevy AM, Jacobs TM, Crowe JE, Meiler J. Design of protein multi‑specicity using
an independent sequence search reduces the barrier to low energy sequences. PLoS
Comput Biol 2015; 11:e1004300. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.
pcbi.1004300
131. Sevy AM, Wu NC, Gilchuk IM, Parrish EH, Burger S, Yousif D, Nagel MBM, Schey KL,
Wilson IA, Crowe JE, etal. Multistate design of inuenza antibodies improves afnity and
breadth against seasonal viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116:1597–602. Available
from: https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1806004116
132. Lawrence MC, Colman PM. Shape complementarity at protein/protein interfaces. J
Mol Biol 1993; 234:946–50. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
8263940
133. Cohen GH, Silverton EW, Padlan EA, Dyda F, Wibbenmeyer JA, Willson RC, Davies DR.
Water molecules in the antibody–antigen interface of the structure of the Fab HyHEL‑5–
lysozyme complex at 1.7 Å resolution: comparison with results from isothermal titration
calorimetry. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2005; 61:628–33. Available from: https://
scripts.iucr.org/cgi‑bin/paper?S0907444905007870
134. Kuroda D, Gray JJ. Shape complementar ity and hydrogen bond preferences in protein‑protei n
interfaces: implications for antibody modeling and protein‑protein docking. Bioinformatics
2016; 32:2451–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw197
135. Yoshida K, Kuroda D, Kiyoshi M, Nakakido M, Nagatoishi S, Soga S, Shirai H,
Tsumoto K. Exploring designability of electrostatic complementarity at an antigen‑anti‑
body interface directed by mutagenesis, biophysical analysis, and molecular dynamics
simulations. Sci Rep 2019; 9:4482. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598‑019‑40461‑5
136. Holt GT, Gorman J, Wang S, Lowegard AU, Zhang B, Liu T, Lin BC, Louder MK, Frenkel
MS, McKee K, et al. Improved HIV‑1 neutralization breadth and potency of V2‑apex
antibodies by in silico design. Cell Rep 2023; 42:112711. Available from: https://doi.
org /10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112711
137. Ozawa T, Ikeda Y, Chen L, Suzuki R, Hoshino A, Noguchi A, Kita S, Anraku Y, Igarashi
E, Saga Y, etal. Rational in silico design identies two mutations that restore UT28K
SARS‑CoV‑2 monoclonal antibody activity against Omicron BA.1. Structure 2024;
32(3):263–272.e7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2023.12.013
138. Moriyama S, Anraku Y, Taminishi S, Adachi Y, Kuroda D, Kita S, Higuchi Y, Kirita
Y, Kotaki R, Tonouchi K, et al. Structural delineation and computational design of
SARS‑CoV‑2‑neutralizing antibodies against Omicron subvariants. Nat Commun 2023;
14:4198. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467‑023‑39890‑8
156 Biopharmaceutical Informatics
139. Maguire JB, Haddox HK, Strickland D, Halabiya SF, Coventry B, Grifn JR, Pulavarti
SVSRK, Cummins M, Thieker DF, Klavins E, etal. Perturbing the energy landscape for
improved packing during computational protein design. Proteins Struct FunctBioinform
2021; 89:436–49. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prot.26030
140. Jeong B‑S, Cha JS, Hwang I, Kim U, Adolf‑Bryfogle J, Coventry B, Cho H‑S, Kim K‑D,
Oh B‑H. Computational design of a neutralizing antibody with picomolar binding afnity
for all concerning SARS‑CoV‑2 variants. MAbs 2022; 14:2021601. Available from: https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420862.2021.2021601
141. Wang T, Wang L, Zhang X, Shen C, Zhang O, Wang J, Wu J, Jin R, Zhou D, Chen S, etal.
Comprehensive assessment of protein loop modeling programs on large‑scale datasets:
prediction accuracy and efciency. Brief Bioinform 2024; 25:1–14. Available from: https://
academic.oup.com/bib/article/doi/10.1093/bib/bbad486/7505239
142. Adolf‑Bryfogle J, Kalyuzhniy O, Kubitz M, Weitzner BD, Hu X, Adachi Y, Schief WR,
Dunbrack RL. RosettaAntibodyDesign (RAbD): a general framework for computational
antibody design. PLoS Comput Biol 2018; 14:e1006112. Available from: https://www.
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/31/183350
143. Chothia C, Lesk AM. Canonical structures for the hypervariable regions of immunoglobu‑
lins. J Mol Biol 1987; 196:901–17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‑2836(87)9
0412‑8
144. Hernandez NE, Jankowski W, Frick R, Kelow SP, Lubin JH, Simhadri V, Adolf‑Bryfogle
J, Khare SD, Dunbrack RL, Gray JJ, etal. Computational design of nanomolar‑binding
antibodies specic to multiple SARS‑CoV‑2 variants by engineering a specicity switch
of antibody 80R using RosettaAntibodyDesign (RAbD) results in potential generalizable
therapeutic antibodies for novel SARS‑CoV‑2 virus. Heliyon 2023; 9:e15032. Available
from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405844023022399
145. Giudicelli V. IMGT/LIGM‑DB, the IMGT(R) comprehensive database of immunoglobulin
and T cell receptor nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34:D781–4. Available
from: https://academic.oup.com/nar/article‑lookup/doi/10.1093/nar/gkj088
146. Corbeil CR, Manenda MS, Sulea T, Baardsnes J, Picard M‑È, Hogues H, Gaudreault F,
Deprez C, Shi R, Purisima EO. Redesigning an antibody H3loop by virtual screening of
a small library of human germline‑derived sequences. Sci Rep2021; 11:21362. Available
from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598‑021‑00669‑w
147. Tokuriki N, Stricher F, Serrano L, Tawk DS. How protein stability and new functions trade
off. PLoS Comput Biol 2008; 4:e1000002. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/jour‑
nal.pcbi.1000002
148. Warszawski S, Borenstein Katz A, Lipsh R, Khmelnitsky L, Ben Nissan G, Javitt G, Dym
O, Unger T, Knop O, Albeck S, etal. Optimizing antibody afnity and stability by the
automated design of the variable light‑heavy chain interfaces. PLoS Comput Biol 2019;
15:e1007207. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007207
149. Akiba H, Tamura H, Caaveiro JMM, Tsumoto K. Computer‑guided library generation
applied to the optimization of single‑domain antibodies. Protein Eng Design Selec 2019;
32:423–31. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/peds/article/32/9/423/5804847
150. Shan S, Luo S, Yang Z, Hong J, Su Y, Ding F, Fu L, Li C, Chen P, Ma J, etal. Deep learning
guided optimization of human antibody against SARS‑CoV‑2 variants with broad neutral‑
ization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119(11):e2122954119. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2122954119
151. Sulea T, Vivcharuk V, Corbeil CR, Deprez C, Purisima EO. Assessment of solvated inter‑
action energy function for ranking antibody‑antigen binding afnities. J Chem Inf Model
2016; 56:1292–303. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00043
6 • From Deep Generative Models to Structure-Based Simulations 157
152. Kurumida Y, Saito Y, Kameda T. Predicting antibody afnity changes upon mutations
by combining multiple predictors. Sci Rep 2020; 10:19533. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598‑020‑76369‑8
153. Kang Y, Leng D, Guo J, Pan L. Sequence‑based deep learning antibody design for in silico
antibody afnity maturation. arXiv 2021. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03724
154. Rajpal A, Beyaz N, Haber L, Cappuccilli G, Yee H, Bhatt RR, Takeuchi T, Lerner RA,
Crea R. A general method for greatly improving the afnity of antibodies by using com‑
binatorial libraries. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:8466–71. Available from: https://
pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0503543102
155. Yang KK, Wu Z, Arnold FH. Machine‑learning‑guided directed evolution for protein engi‑
neering. Nat Methods 2019; 16:687–94. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41592‑019‑0496‑6
156. Liu G, Zeng H, Mueller J, Carter B, Wang Z, Schilz J, Horny G, Birnbaum ME, Ewert S,
Gifford DK. Antibody complementarity determining region design using high‑capacity
machine learning. Bioinformatics 2020; 36:2126–33. Available from: https://academic.oup.
com/bioinformatics/article/36/7/2126/5645171
157. Saka K, Kakuzaki T, Metsugi S, Kashiwagi D, Yoshida K, Wada M, Tsunoda H, Teramoto
R. Antibody design using LSTM based deep generative model from phage display library
for afnity maturation. Sci Rep 2021; 11:5852. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598‑ 0 21‑85274‑7
158. Parkinson J, Hard R, Wang W. The RESP AI model accelerates the identication of
tight‑binding antibodies. Nat Commun 2023; 14:454. Available from: https://www.nature.
com/articles/s41467‑023‑36028‑8
159. Alley EC, Khimulya G, Biswas S, AlQuraishi M, Church GM. Unied rational pro‑
tein engineering with sequence‑based deep representation learning. Nat Methods 2019;
16:1315–22. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592‑019‑0598‑1
160. Harvey EP, Shin J‑E, Skiba MA, Nemeth GR, Hurley JD, Wellner A, Shaw AY, Miranda
VG, Min JK, Liu CC, et al. An in silico method to assess antibody fragment polyreac‑
tiv ity. Nat Commun 2022; 13:7554. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41467‑022‑35276‑4
161. Fowler DM, Fields S. Deep mutational scanning: a new style of protein science. Nat
Methods 2014; 11:801–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25075907
162. Mason DM, Friedensohn S, Weber CR, Jordi C, Wagner B, Meng SM, Ehling RA, Bonati
L, Dahinden J, Gainza P, etal. Optimization of therapeutic antibodies by predicting anti‑
gen specicity from antibody sequence via deep learning. Nat Biomed Eng 2021; 5:600–
612. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551‑021‑00699‑9
163. Li L, Gupta E, Spaeth J, Shing L, Jaimes R, Engelhart E, Lopez R, Caceres RS, Bepler
T, Walsh ME. Machine learning optimization of candidate antibody yields highly diverse
sub‑nanomolar afnity antibody libraries. Nat Commun 2023; 14:3454. Available from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467‑023‑39022‑2
164. Hie BL, Shanker VR, Xu D, Bruun TUJ, Weidenbacher PA, Tang S, Wu W, Pak JE,
Kim PS. Efcient evolution of human antibodies from general protein language mod‑
els. Nat Biotechnol 2024; 42:275–83. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41587‑023‑01763‑2
165. Akbar R, Robert PA, Weber CR, Widrich M, Frank R, Pavlović M, Scheffer L,
Chernigovskaya M, Snapkov I, Slabodkin A, etal. In silico proof of principle of machine
learning‑based antibody design at unconstrained scale. MAbs 2022; 14:2031482. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2022.2031482
158 Biopharmaceutical Informatics
166. Zhao W, Luo X, Tong F, Zheng X, Li J, Zhao G, Zhao D. Improving antibody optimization
ability of generative adversarial network through large language model. Comput Struct
Biotechnol J 2023; 21:5839–50. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S2001037023004555
167. Lim YW, Adler AS, Johnson DS. Predicting antibody binders and generating synthetic
antibodies using deep learning. MAbs 2022; 14:2069075. Available from: https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420862.2022.2069075
168. Mahajan SP, Ruffolo JA, Frick R, Gray JJ. Hallucinating structure‑conditioned antibody
libraries for target‑specic binders. Front Immunol 2022; 13:999034. Available from:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/mmu.2022.999034/full
169. Khan A, Cowen‑Rivers AI, Grosnit A, Deik D‑G‑X, Robert PA, Greiff V, Smorodina E,
Rawat P, Akbar R, Dreczkowski K, etal. Toward real‑world automated antibody design
with combinatorial Bayesian optimization. Cell Rep Methods 2023; 3:100374. Available
from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2667237522002764
170. Wang Y, Wang B, Shi T, Fu J, Kong H, Biomap YZ, Zhang Z. Sample‑efcient antibody
design through protein language model for risk‑aware batch Bayesian optimization. In:
NeurIPS 2023 Workshop: New Frontiers of AI for Drug Discovery and Development
2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.06.565922
171. Makowski EK, Wu L, Desai AA, Tessier PM. Highly sensitive detection of antibody non‑
specic interactions using ow cytometry. MAbs 2021; 13:1951426. Available from: https://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420862.2021.1951426
172. Guo Y, Chen K, Kwong PD, Shapiro L, Sheng Z. cAb‑Rep: a database of curated anti‑
body repertoires for exploring antibody diversity and predicting antibody prevalence.
Front Immunol 2019; 10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
mmu.2019.02365/full
173. Suzek BE, Huang H, McGarvey P, Mazumder R, Wu CH. UniRef: comprehensive and
non‑redundant UniProt reference clusters. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:1282–8. Available
from: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/23/10/1282/197795
174. Engelhart E, Emerson R, Shing L, Lennartz C, Guion D, Kelley M, Lin C, Lopez R,
Younger D, Walsh ME. A dataset comprised of binding interactions for 104,972 antibodies
against a SARS‑CoV‑2 peptide. Sci Data 2022; 9:653. Available from: https://www.nature.
com/articles/s41597‑022‑01779‑4
175. Greiff V, Menzel U, Miho E, Weber C, Riedel R, Cook S, Valai A, Lopes T, Radbruch A,
Winkler TH, etal. Systems analysis reveals high genetic and antigen‑driven predetermi‑
nation of antibody repertoires throughout B cell development. Cell Rep2017; 19(7):1467–
1478. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.04.054
176. Asensio MA, Lim YW, Wayham N, Stadtmiller K, Edgar RC, Leong J, Leong R, Mizrahi
RA, Adams MS, Simons JF, etal. Antibody repertoire analysis of mouse immunization
protocols using microuidics and molecular genomics. MAbs 2019; 11:870–83. Available
from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420862.2019.1583995
177. Raybould MIJ, Kovaltsuk A, Marks C, Deane CM. CoV‑AbDab: the coronavirus anti‑
body database. Bioinformatics 2021; 37:734–5. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/
bioinformatics/article/37/5/734/5893556
178. Du Z, Qian Y, Liu X, Ding M, Qiu J, Yang Z, Tang J. GLM: general language model pretraining
with autoregressive blank inlling. In: Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, Aline Villavicencio
(eds.),
Proceedings of th e 60th Annua l Meeting of the A ssociation for Comp utational Lingu istics
(Volume 1: long papers)
320–35.Available from: https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl‑long.26
179. Chong CR, Sullivan DJ. New uses for old drugs. Nature 2007; 448:645–6. Available from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/448645a
. Kerrville, TX: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. page
6 • From Deep Generative Models to Structure-Based Simulations 159
180. Nimrod G, Fischman S, Austin M, Herman A, Keyes F, Leiderman O, Hargreaves D,
Strajbl M, Breed J, Klompus S, etal. Computational design of epitope‑specic functional
antibodies. Cell Rep2018; 25:2121–2131.e5. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.
com/retrieve/pii/S2211124718316851
181. Chen R, Li L, Weng Z. ZDOCK: an initial‑stage protein‑docking algorithm. Proteins
Struct Funct Genetics 2003; 52:80–7. Available from: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/
prot.10389
182. Ritchie DW, Venkatraman V. Ultra‑fast FFT protein docking on graphics proces‑
sors. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:2398–405. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/
bioinformatics/article/26/19/2398/229220
183. Tam C, Kukimoto‑Niino M, Miyata‑Yabuki Y, Tsuda K, Mishima‑Tsumagari C, Ihara K,
Inoue M, Yonemochi M, Hanada K, Matsumoto T, etal. Targeting Ras‑binding domain of
ELMO1 by computational nanobody design. Commun Biol 2023; 6:284. Available from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003‑023‑04657‑w
184. Schneidman‑Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. PatchDock and SymmDock:
servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucleic Acids Res 2005; 33:W363–7. Available
from: https://academic.oup.com/nar/article‑lookup/doi/10.1093/nar/gki481
185. Barlow KA, Ó Conchúir S, Thompson S, Suresh P, Lucas JE, Heinonen M, Kortemme T.
Flex ddG: Rosetta ensemble‑based estimation of changes in protein–protein binding afn‑
ity upon mutation. J Phys Chem B 2018; 122:5389–99. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/
doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b11367
186. Schneider C, Buchanan A, Taddese B, Deane CM. DLAB: deep learning methods for
structure‑based virtual screening of antibodies. Bioinformatics 2022; 38:377–83. Available
from: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/2/377/6373413
187. Kontermann RE, Brinkmann U. Bispecic antibodies. Drug Discov Today 2015; 20:838–
47. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S135964461500077X
188. Sawant MS, Streu CN, Wu L, Tessier PM. Toward drug‑like multispecic anti‑
bodies by design. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:7496. Available from: https://www.mdpi.
com/1422‑0067/21/20/7496
189. Tian Z, Liu M, Zhang Y, Wang X. Bispecic T cell engagers: an emerging therapy for
management of hematologic malignancies. J Hematol Oncol 2021; 14:75. Available from:
https://jhoonline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045‑021‑01084‑4
190. Wu J, Fu J, Zhang M, Liu D. Blinatumomab: a bispecic T cell engager (BiTE) antibody
against CD19/CD3 for refractory acute lymphoid leukemia. J Hematol Oncol 2015; 8:104.
Available from: https://www.jhoonline.org/content/8/1/104
191. Dunbar J, Knapp B, Fuchs A, Shi J, Deane CM. Examining variable domain orientations
in antigen receptors gives insight into TCR‑like antibody design. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;
10:e1003852. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003852
192. Aertker KMJ, Pilvankar MR, Prass TM, Blech M, Higel F, Kasturirangan S. Exploring
molecular determinants and pharmacokinetic properties of IgG1‑scFv bispecic anti‑
bodies. MAbs 2024; 16:2318817. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2024.
2318817
193. Carter P, Ridgway JBB, Presta LG. ‘Knobs‑into‑holes’ provides a rational design
strategy for engineering antibody CH3 domains for heavy chain heterodimerization.
Immunotechnology 1996; 2:73. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/1380293396806853
194. Lewis SM, Wu X, Pustilnik A, Sereno A, Huang F, Rick HL, Guntas G, Leaver‑Fay A,
Smith EM, Ho C, etal. Generation of bispecic IgG antibodies by structure‑based design
of an orthogonal Fab interface. Nat Biotechnol 2014; 32:191–8. Available from: https://
www.nature.com/articles/nbt.2797
160 Biopharmaceutical Informatics
195. Leaver‑Fay A, Froning KJ, Atwell S, Aldaz H, Pustilnik A, Lu F, Huang F, Yuan R,
Hassanali S, Chamberlain AK, etal. Computationally designed bispecic antibodies using
negative state repertoires. Structure 2016; 24:641–51. Available from: https://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0969212616000721
196. Froning K J, L eaver‐Fay A, Wu X, Phan S, Gao L, Huang F, Pustilnik A, Bacica M, Houlihan
K, Chai Q, etal. Computational design of a specic heavy chain/κ light chain interface for
expressing fully IgG bispecic antibodies. Protein Sci 2017; 26:2021–38. Available from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pro.3240
197. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational
approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development set‑
tings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997; 23:3–25. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S0169409X96004231